[resc1440]

The article says this is repairing a loophole:

> The 1959 law on which the regulations are based already required employers to disclose the hiring of such consultants. But the Labor Department argued that previous administrations had allowed an enormous loophole that effectively exempted consultants who coached supervisors on how to influence employees so long as the consultants didn’t interact with the employees directly.

But won't they just hire the same people as "workforce relationship consultants who are TOTALLY not anti-union"? Isn't there an infinite supply of loopholes here?

[kodablah]

An infinite supply indeed. For example:

> [...] lawyers would only have to make the relevant disclosures if they provide advice about how to discourage the formation of a union or collective bargaining. He said that advice on pure legal matters would remain uncovered by the rule.

Quite subjective.

[tryitnow]

How is that subjective? Not being a smartass here, I just see that there's a pretty clear distinction between "advice on pure legal matters" and advice on "how to discourage" union formation.

It's like the difference between a political campaign's counsel and it's campaign consultants. Or the difference between a corporations general counsel and its PR department.

Now of course, people will try to get around this, but that's true of any law. Just because we outlaw murder doesn't mean there are no murderers.

[erikpukinskis]

> But won't they just hire the same people as "workforce relationship consultants who are TOTALLY not anti-union"?

They can try, but that won't get them off the hook. It doesn't matter what the sign on the consultant's door says, what matters their discussion of unions.